Passwords are a way of life now. It’s hard to imagine what the Internet would be like without any passwords, isn’t it? Yet, if we contemplated the idea of a password for even a moment, we’d realize that passwords just aren’t very secure. Indeed, most security experts already know this, yet here we are still using passwords. Why?

With every other hacked database and credit card scandal that occurs, it becomes more evident that we can’t rely on passwords for much longer. But if not passwords, what else is there?

Why We Started Using Passwords

The ancient Romans had a system of watchwords that were used to prove one’s identity and authority. By extension, watchwords were used to gain entry into secret locations or to gain access to private resources. Sounds a lot like modern passwords, right? These watchwords were changed as frequently as once per day and proved quite effective.

Eventually, watchwords evolved into passwords and counter-passwords, where a sentry would present a cryptic question or phrase and expect a predetermined response. Think of a modern website’s security question and you’ve got the right idea.

For example, in the Battle of Normandy, U.S. soldiers uttered “Flash” when encountering unknown groups out in the field. By replying with “Thunder,” soldiers could prove that they were truly allies rather than spies or imposters.

Advertisement

Computers have their roots in the military, so is it a surprise that we adopted the password mechanism for specialized access? We’ve made a few advancements – such as tying a password directly to a username for personal accounts – but the concept has been around for thousands of years.

Passwords: The One Huge Flaw

Passwords have served us well, there’s no doubt about that. However, they aren’t perfect. Not by a long shot. In fact, the concept of a password has one glaring flaw that can never be fixed: passwords are all or nothing.

What if we combined passwords with security questions? That seems to be the typical solution used by banks and other places that offer secure accounts, but if you think about it, security questions are just passwords in a different wrapper and suffer from the same issue of using obscurity for security.

That being said, there are plenty of other weaknesses to using passwords in the Internet age:

Most users don’t want to worry about memorizing a complex password and thus default to using a simplistic password that’s easily guessable.

Most users use the same password for many accounts, resulting in one key that unlocks dozens (or hundreds) of doors.

Most users don’t even keep their passwords in secret. Everything from Netflix accounts to bank accounts to web accounts to video game accounts are often shared between friends, family members, and even strangers.

And that’s the direction in which security needs to move. Because passwords are intangible, they can be compromised by knowledge alone. Having some sort of physical proof of identity is a stronger measure of security.

There is a critical drawback, however, and that’s the possibility of losing access due to disfiguration, amputation, laryngitis, or worse. There’s also the fact that authentication would need to be strict enough not to be fooled by imposters/photos/recordings, yet lenient enough to accommodate day-to-day fluctuations in appearance, voice, etc.

I have a fingerprint scanner on my 10 + year old Toshiba that works 95% of the time to unlock the HD. I don't understand why that method with a user name is not used for web sites. Unless security is simple and useable it won't be used. You need good passwords for ordering the broccoli as the bank because you are probably using the same password. These occasional use accounts we have forgotten about are usually at places where it is easy to hack into. Then the crooks can go after your Bank accounts.
Realistically chip and pin credit cards will stop a lot of this and severe penalties for firms being hacked . Tj Maxx we're sending CC info in the clear from branch to Headquarters. Recent penetrations have come from intense work into employee accounts to travel into the data centre of the company. Our data is jeopardized by companies too cheap or stupid to protect it

There is just nothing that will as easily replace the password. Not everyone has a cell phone, so that's not universal. You can use biometrics, but not everyone has a good iris scanner or fingerprint reader. The most secure solution is probably a usb key, that you keep on a chain around your neck. You can keep your password list on there, and encrypt it with, of course, a password.

The only way I would think of using biometrics is as secondary authentication. Law enforcement can compel you to swipe a finger to unlock your phone, but they can't compel you to enter/reveal a password.

Ummmm...I remember back in the 1980's reading advertisements in Computer Shopper magazine for dongles that plugged in the (I believe) parallel port on the back of a computer to prevent unauthorized access. Different codes could be programmed in with a line of DIP switches on the dongle.
Where I work we have USB dongles on the back of each terminal which allows access to our inventory software, and we've had them about 10 years now.
This isn't new technology...it's been around so long that I think people have forgotten about it. Kind of like when platform shoes and bell bottom jeans were "discovered to be cool" a few years ago. :D

Unless it's my banking or credit card accounts, I couldn't possibly care less about secrecy!
Why should I care if someone finds out what video I watched on You tube or what book I ordered from Amazon?
If you ask me, it's gotten out of hand. Why should I have to have a username and password to a site I order broccoli sprouts from?

Passwords are insecure as you mentioned. Biometrics can be flighty; they don't always work properly. Two factor authentication works better but is cumbersome and requires personal discipline. If someone has enough knowledge, motivation and resources, there are ways to gain access to information even if the computer system is not physically connected to the internet.
Even if someone came up with a more secure way of preventing anyone from getting at information illegally, it would only be a matter of time before some genius came up with a way of getting around it.
The best way to protect information today, (even though it is infallible), is to make it make it difficult, time consuming or costly enough for the hacker that it's not worth their time.

- Regular, easy to remember passwords for information that you don't care whether it's made public,
- Strong passwords for information that can cause harm but is easily deflected (think excess spam),
- Very strong passwords for information that is not so easily deflected, (personal information, credit card information, etc.),
- 2 factor authentication for information that can ruin you financially or cause you enough trouble or embarrassment to make you move to another city.

"two-factor authentication requires two different kinds of identity proof, such as password + mobile phone."
There are still many people that do not have and/or do not wish to have a mobile phone. Therefore, no two factor authentication for them. What happens if you lose your phone or it malfunctions. No two factor authentication for you.

" USB drives can be turned into physical keys"
Didn't we have this with dongles several years back? It wasn't accepted then, what makes you think it will be accepted now?

"Biometrics"
As Readandshare said, you can change your password easily but you cannot easily change your biometrics. Keyloggers were developed to capture key strokes. Something analoguous can be developed to capture biometric information. Retinal and fingerprint scans can be gamed by scanning the required body part of an unconscious or dead owner.

There are two ways to deal with threats: refusing and accepting.
- Refusing can be further split into protection and deflection.
- Accepting can split into not showing and always showing.

Passwords and encryption are protection by refusing access.
An example of deflection is a honeypot.
Not showing (or storing) sensitive information is not always an option.
Always showing is to show information in a way that is only useful to the intended.

I believe this last method, always showing, can be the best method. Show information to anyone that asks, but in a way that is only obvious or understandable to the intended.

Yeah, at the root of it all, credentials must be stored somewhere and that storage could always be hacked. Solutions like two-factor authentication add an extra layer of security, so maybe that's the direction we should be looking?

Biometrics has a second critical flaw not mentioned in this article. Be it fingerprints, iris scans, or voice recognition -- all are digitized and stored at host computers for logging-in authentication. And of course, we all know about systems being hacked and databases stolen!

Right now, when user data are stolen, we are asked to change our passwords. But we can't easily change our fingerprints, iris shapes or voices!

Ah, good point! Certainly tougher to crack than text but not impossible by any means. Is it possible to have access credentials that aren't stored anywhere? Seems impossible, but it'd be fascinating to see in action!

We always want simplicity when it comes to use no matter how complicated process is in the background.
Evey tech has it's drawback.
We don't just have to see quality of the security but also the fact that how economic it is.
Biometrics are good choice but for something which deserves that kind of security NOT for our Facebook accounts.
It's like replacing watchman or security guard with the United States Secret Service.
So instead of implementing a common security system a security based on sensitivity of data should be implemented.

In many ways, that will probably be less secure than a password. However, a pass-sentence (a full sentence being used as a password) could be more secure than a password as the sheer volume would be harder to brute force.

As Jamieg mentioned, all of these pass-related inputs still reside on the server and all it takes is one incidence of compromise to be rendered broken. :(